Sustainability-Driven New Business Models in Wood Construction Towards 2030

  • Anne Toppinen
  • Minna Autio
  • Miska Sauru
  • Sami Berghäll
Chapter
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)

Abstract

In the transition towards a renewable material -based bioeconomy in Europe, growing interest is being directed towards wooden multistorey construction (WMC) as a sustainable housing solution. We analyse the changing WMC business, and the involved value networks towards 2030 based on service business model literature, with a focus also on consumer-driven models. Methodologically our study uses a three-round Delphi process focusing on Finland as a country where national bioeconomy strategy specifically acknowledges wood-based construction. Based on our results, the primary reasons for wood utilization are supporting the bioeconomy strategy with the use of renewable materials and addressing indoor air quality concerns. This happens instead of enhancing intrinsic motivation towards sustainable bioeconomy as such. Therefore, transforming business models towards sustainability calls for strengthening the positive image of the wood construction industry, especially among a largely neglected stakeholder group, i.e. residents. To achieve business model development, the industry needs to strengthen its orchestration of partner networks and capabilities, by including not only new co-creators as a part of the actor-to-actor network, but also residents as end-users.

Keywords

Sustainability transition New business models Wood construction Finland Europe 

References

  1. Anderson-Connell L, Ulrich P, Brannon E (2002) A consumer-driven model for mass customization in the apparel market. J Fashion Mark Manage: Int J 6(3):240–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourdeau L (1999) Sustainable development and the future of construction: a comparison of visions from various countries. Build Res Inf 27(6):354–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosman R, Rotmans J (2016) Transition governance towards a bioeconomy: a comparison of Finland and the Netherlands. Sustainability 8:1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brege S, Stehn L, Nord T (2014) Business models in industrialized building of multi-storey houses. Constr Manage Econ 32:208–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnard M, Kutnar A (2015) Wood and human stress in the built indoor environment: a review. Wood Sci Technol 49(5):969–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandler J, Vargo S (2011) Contextualization and value-in-context: how context frames exchange. Mark Theor 11(1):35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darko A, Zhang C, Chan A (2017) Drivers for green building: a review of empirical studies. Habitat Int 60:34–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edvardsson B, Tronvol B, Gruber T (2011) Expanding the understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. J Acad Mark Sci 39(2):327–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forsythe P (2006) Consumer-perceived appearance tolerances in construction quality management. Eng Constr Architectural Manage 13(3):307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gold S, Rubik F (2009) Consumer attitudes towards timber as a construction material and towards timber frame houses—selected findings of a representative survey among the German population. J Clean Prod 17:303–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansen E (2016) Responding to the bioeconomy: business model innovation in the forest sector. In: Kutnar A, Muthi S (eds) Environmental impacts of traditional and innovative forest-based bioproducts. Springer, pp 227–248Google Scholar
  12. Harris M, Halkett R (2007) Hidden innovation: how innovation happens in six ‘low innovation’ sectors. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Hemström K, Gustavsson L, Mahapatra K (2017) The sociotechnical regime and Swedish contractor perceptions of structural frames. Constr Manage Econ 35:184–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoibo O, Hansen E, Nybakk E (2015) Building material preferences with a focus on wood in urban housing: durability and environmental impacts. Can J For Res 45(11):1617–1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoffman AJ, Henn R (2008) Overcoming the social and psychological barriers to green building. Organ Environ 21(4):390–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holopainen J, Häyrinen L, Toppinen A (2014) Consumer value dimensions for sustainable wood products: results from the Finnish retail sector. Scand J For Res 29(4):378–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hu H, Geertman S, Hooimeijer P (2013) The willingness to pay for green apartments: the case of Nanjing, China. Urban Stud 51(16):3459–3478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunt SD, Morgan R (1995) The comparative advantage theory of competition. J Mark 59:1–15Google Scholar
  19. Häkkinen T, Belloni K (2011) Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Build Res Inf 39(3):239–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Höök M, Stehn L, Brege S (2015) The development of a portfolio of business models: a longitudinal case study of a building material company. Constr Manage Econ 33(5–6):334–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Killip G (2013) Products, practices and processes: exploring the innovation potential for low-carbon housing refurbishment among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UK construction industry. Energy Policy 62:522–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lahdenperä P (2012) Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery. Constr Manage Econ 30(1):57–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Landeta J (2006) Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 73(5):467–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lessing J, Brege S (2015) Business models for product-oriented house-building companies—experience from two Swedish case studies. Constr Innovation 15(4):449–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luo W, Kanzaki M, Matsushita K (2017) Promoting green buildings: do Chinese consumers care about green building enhancements? Int J Consum Stud. ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  26. Osterwalder A, Pigner Y, Tucci C (2005) Clarifying business models: origins, present, and future of the concept. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 16:1Google Scholar
  27. Payne A, Storbacka K, Frow P (2008) Managing the co-creation of value. J Acad Mark Sci 36(1):83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pulkka L, Ristimäki M, Rajakallio K, Junnila S (2016) Applicability and benefits of the ecosystem concept in the construction industry. Constr Manage Econ 34(2):129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Magretta J (2002) Why business models matter. Harvard Bus Rev 80(5):86–92Google Scholar
  30. Mokhlesian S, Holmen M (2012) Business model changes and green construction processes. Constr Manage Econ 30:761–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pelli P (2016) Service ecosystems as frameworks to elaborate sustainable futures. In: Proceedings of 26th RESER Conference. 8th–10th Sept 2016, Naples, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  32. Pels J, Sheth JN (2017) Business models to serve low-income consumers in emerging markets. Mark Theory. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1470593117704262
  33. Prahalad CK, Bettis RA (1986) The dominant logic: a new linkage between diversity and performance. Strateg Manag J 7(6):485–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pynnönen M (2008) Customer driven business model–connecting customer value to firm resources in ICT value networks. Dissertation, Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis. Lappeenranta University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  35. Pynnönen M, Hallikas J, Ritala P (2012) Managing customer-driven business model innovation. Int J Innov Manag 16(4):1250022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Razmdoost K, Mills G (2016) Towards a service-led relationship in project-based firms. Constr Manage Econ 34(4–5):317–334.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2016.1200106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Teece D (2010) Business model, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan 43(2–3):172–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Toppinen A, Wan M, Lähtinen K (2013) Strategic orientations in global forest industry. In: Hansen E et al (eds) Global forest industry: changes, practices and prospects (Book Chapter 17). Taylor & Francis LtdGoogle Scholar
  39. Toppinen A, Röhr A, Pätäri S, Lähtinen K, Toivonen R (2017) The future of wooden multistory construction in the forest bioeconomy—a Delphi study from Finland and Sweden. J Forest Econ (in press). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1104689916300952
  40. Storbacka K, Frow P, Nenonen S, Payne A (2012) Designing business models for value co-creation. Rev Mark Res 9:51–78Google Scholar
  41. Strobel K, Nyrud A, Bysheim K (2017) Interior wood use: linking user perceptions to physical properties. Scand J For Res.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2017.1287299Google Scholar
  42. Vargo S, Lusch R (2004) Evolving into a new dominant logic for marketing. J Mark 68:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vargo S, Lusch R (2008) Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J Acad Mark Sci 36(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vargo S, Lusch R (2016a) Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. J Acad Mark Sci 44:5–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vargo S, Lusch R (2016b) Service-dominant logic 2025. Int J Mark Res, in press.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iresmar.2016.11.001Google Scholar
  46. Vargo S (2007) On theory of markets and marketing: from positively normative to normatively positive. Australas Mark J 15(1):53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang L, Toppinen A, Juslin H (2014) Use of wood in green building: a study of expert perspectives from the UK. J Clean Prod 65:350–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Toppinen
    • 1
  • Minna Autio
    • 2
  • Miska Sauru
    • 1
  • Sami Berghäll
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations